Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy the Earth?
Some people believe that CERN's new Large Hadron Collider will create black holes that will destroy the Earth.
Filed under Conspiracies, General Science
| Skeptoid #109 July 15, 2008 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 109, July 15, 2008
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4109
Imagine a $10 billion underground ring-shaped tunnel, 27 km in circumference, so big that it stretches through both France and Switzerland: One ring to rule them all, the new Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, better known as CERN, scheduled to come online around about August 2008.
A collider is the basic tool of particle physics. You take a stream of particles, accelerate them to really high kinetic energy levels, and slam them into a target. Depending on the experiment, all sorts of exotic things happen. Most experiments are to create new particles predicted by theory or to examine their behavior. The Large Hadron Collider, or LHC, has two beams traveling in opposite directions around the 27 km circle, each accelerated to 7 TeV (trillion electron volts) of energy and traveling at 99.999999% of the speed of light, held in place by powerful magnets. All around the ring are different experiment stations. To perform an experiment, you turn on the experimental detector and use the magnets to collide the beams into each other head-on inside your detector, creating 600 million 14 TeV collisions per second. That's a pretty high energy level, and we expect to learn all sorts of new and exotic things about the universe. Most famously, we hope to find the theorized Higgs boson, the particle that creates mass; but the collider's various experiments will produce knowledge that will permeate virtually every science we have.
As you may have heard by now, some people have voiced concerns that particle collisions from the LHC will create tiny black holes. Black holes have such intense gravity that they consume everything around them, even light. And so, within a fraction of a second, this tiny black hole will consume the collider itself, France, Switzerland, and then the entire Earth, presumably followed shortly thereafter by our whole solar system. Clearly not a fear to be taken lightly.
The best known opposition to the Large Hadron Collider comes in the form of a much publicized lawsuit, filed in Hawaii by two individuals, science writer Luis Sancho and retired nuclear safety officer Walter L. Wagner, against the US Department of Energy, Fermilab, CERN, the National Science Foundation and Does 1-100. The lawsuit presents affidavits from the plaintiffs and five other individuals, stating their opinion that dangerous black holes could be formed and seeking to block operation of the collider until these fears can be adequately studied. It seems a reasonable precaution, given how incredibly gigantic and powerful the LHC is, and how Biblical the scale of the destruction it might wreak.
Yet, the Large Hadron Collider is but a donut compared to what the United States' Superconducting Supercollider would have been. The SSC, as it was known until its cancellation in 1993, would have had a circumference of 87 km and a beam energy of 30 TeV — that's more than three times the size of the LHC and more than twice the energy. And even the mighty SSC was but a Cheerio compared to the hypothetical Very Large Hadron Collider proposed by Fermilab, with a circumference of 105 to 650 km, and a beam energy of 40 to 200 TeV! So when you compare the LHC to other possible colliders, you realize that yeah it's crazy big, but it's not that big and it's nowhere near the energy levels that are possible. It's certainly not the "ultimate doomsday device" that some fearmongering detractors are making it out to be.
And, even after looking at other possible larger colliders, if you're still concerned that 14 TeV represents the pinnacle of danger, just look at the naturally occurring collisions happening all around us every day. Cosmic rays in the LHC's energy range are hitting the atmosphere constantly, and have been for 4 billion years, creating the same type of collisions that the collider will produce. Some of these, called Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays, have been measured at over 1020 electron volts, ten million times as energetic as the LHC's maximum energy. While that sounds like a staggering amount, it's about the kinetic energy of a baseball thrown at 100 kph. That's a lot for a single proton, but it's hardly the destruction of the planet.
So one way to think of this is that the Large Hadron Collider is just an impotent little Spaghetti-O compared to the greatest supercollider of them all: The universe. Nature's supercollider has been going for billions of years at energies millions of times higher than human scientists can dream about. So far, neither Earth nor any of the other planets, nor even any super-dense astronomical bodies like neutron stars, have suffered from particle collisions. In fact, according to Dr. Brian Cox at CERN, the universe conducts the equivalent of ten trillion lifetime runs of the LHC every second, and has been doing so for billions of years, with not a single observable consequence.
The main reason is that micro black holes of the type that particle collisions can create behave very differently than the giant supernova-sized black holes you see in movies. They don't eat anything. Instead, they explode with a tiny little micro pop. Most people have heard of Hawking radiation, which is emitted by black holes. As large black holes eat stuff, they also evaporate away as Hawking radiation. The smaller the black hole, the more energetic this evaporation. For a micro black hole, this evaporation happens at essentially the same instant it is created, or at least, this is what is theorized: Specifically, they would decay instantaneously into hadron jets and high PT leptons, which are one thing that we actually hope to see with the LHC. As for Sancho and Wagner's concerns, they are not the first people to conceive of these events; and whether they like to think so or not, the subject has already been studied — exhaustively, in fact — and it's been part of the plans since many years before they contrived their little lawsuit. In fact, four years before Sancho and Wagner filed their lawsuit, CERN completed its report based on decades of research into the safety of the collider, which concludes:
We consider all such objects that have been theoretically envisaged, such as negatively charged strangelets, gravitational black holes, and magnetic monopoles. We find no basis for any conceivable threat.
As a backup in case their black hole alarmism should fail, Sancho and Wagner also proposed a danger from strangelets created by the LHC. Strangelets are unusual particles composed of an eclectic mixture of similar numbers of up, down, and strange quarks. This so-called strange matter is one candidate for the dark matter in the universe. The theoretical threat from strangelets would be that their negative charge would attract and consume the positively charged nuclei of ordinary matter. However this supposition is based on a long chain of "ifs", a chain in which every link is broken. For one thing, most calculations of strange matter show that strangelets would have a positive charge. For another, strangelets can only be stable enough to exist at extremely low temperatures; and their creation in a particle collision would result in extremely high temperatures in which the strangelets must immediately decay. And even if somehow a collision did create a very cold, stable, negatively charged strangelet, it could only grow so long as its charge remained negative, which of course would no longer be the case after it had consumed a handful of positively charged nuclei; and it would then become a harmless particle of ordinary matter.
Unfortunately, the mass media isn't doing anyone any favors. News outlets continue to promote alarmism with headlines like this one from MSNBC: "Doomsday Under Debate", or this one from CNN: "Some Fear Debut of Powerful Atom-Smasher", claiming "The safety of the powerful collider has been debated for years". Absolutely untrue. There is no "debate" among knowledgeable particle physicists. There is plenty of fear mongering and ignorance, and also plenty of "cooler heads" who have been given this misinformation and are now issuing reasonable-sounding warnings like "the potential risks are so high that we should step back and investigate these concerns." These people advocating caution have neither valid theoretical arguments nor any information to refute the physicists' observations, and don't appear to have taken even the most fundamental steps to inform themselves about the issues they are so passionately pursuing. Instead, they make apocalyptic anti-science web sites like SaneScience.org and LHCFacts.org to spread misinformation.
You don't have "two sides" to science. There is no "listening to both sides". Science is not philosophy or opinion. Science consists of what we've learned so far. And one thing that we've learned so far, and validated with billions of years of universe-scale observation, is that a particle collider represents no plausible danger, and offers astonishing potential for furthering our knowledge. Hang onto your hats, because the Large Hadron Collider is going to bring unprecedented advances in medicine, clean energy production, unified field theory, computing, and astrophysics. Get on board for the ride!
© 2008 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Blaizot, J.P., Iliopoulos, J., Madsen, J., Ross, G.G., Sonderegger, P., Specht, H.J. "Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC: Report of the LHC Safety Study Group." CERN 2003–001. European Organization for Nuclear Research, 28 Feb. 2003. Web. 1 Jun. 2008. <http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf>
Cox, Brian. "Brian Cox on CERN's supercollider." TED Ideas Worth Spreading. The Sapling Foundation, 29 Apr. 2008. Web. 10 May. 2008. <http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html>
Dar, A., De Rujula, A., Heinz, U. "Will relativistic heavy-ion colliders destroy our planet?" Physics Letters B. 16 Dec. 1999, Volume 470, Number 1: 142-148.
Hawking, Stephen. "Particle creation by black holes." Communications in Mathematical Physics. 1 Aug. 1975, Volume 43, Number 3: 199-220.
Jaffe, R. L., Busza, W., Wilczek, F., Sandweiss, J. "Review of speculative “disaster scenarios” at RHIC." Reviews of Modern Physics. 1 Oct. 2000, Volume 72, Number 4: 1125-1140.
Seife, Charles. "Fly's Eye Spies Highs in Cosmic Rays' Demise." Science. 19 May 2000, Volume 288, No. 5469: 1147.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy the Earth?" Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
15 Jul 2008. Web.
20 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4109>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 214 comments
Guys, hold on. The last sentence I used that was in parentheses was completely my very own speculation based on an article I read in greek some years ago. To be honest, I am not really sure myself of how exactly this radiation level might go up since there are math to support the claim that nothing could possibly go wrong. And what I mean by "wrong" is the unnecessary wasting of energy, not some time anomaly or strange time loop or I don't know.. black hole or what have you.
Macky, there are people who know far better math or English than me and can explain it in even greater detail. I did some research myself. I am only high school level physicist I'm afraid, not really an expert on LHC. I hope this helps:
<http://lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=3&p=1&e=0>
Happy holidays guys.
Yanis K, Grevena, Hellas
December 23, 2012 9:54am
Yanis, all the best to you too.
I still accept the radiation thing as a valid reason for extended safety measures.
It sounds sensible to me.
Your English is great. I didn't check your math, not that I'm any hotshot either, but if correct, 10 times the collision rate of the LHC on the Sun's surface (or any other celestial body) doesn't seem a lot more, in the cosmic scheme of things.
My main assertion is that conditions in the LHC are deliberately being created to emulate the Big Bang a fraction of a second after it began.
As such, unless other civilisations are conducting the same experiments, then NOWHERE ELSE in the whole Universe are these particular conditions occurring. It's unnatural.
Yes there are substantial collisions going on universally, every second, but they are in quite different and varied environments than the LHC collision chamber(s).
The "scientific facts" that Brian has quoted from Dr. Brian Cox, as assurances that the LHC is safe, are nothing but pure unprovable speculation. He can't prove what he says, and he will never be able to, for so many reasons.
He is in fact engaging in pseudo-science, stating as scientific fact something which he can't prove.
MY speculations that the LHC is not safe because of the nature (or unnature) of the experiments going on, and will go on with double the power in 2014-15, are provable whereas Dr. Brian Cox's are not.
Mine will be proven right or wrong, from now, until the day LHC ceases its Big Bang experiments.
Macky, Auckland
December 23, 2012 1:31pm
Sorry, if you are talking the "radiation thing" you are in lala land.
Macky, start coughing up sone real stuff on this.
I could say many ridiculous things that you consinder sensible.
Double the power? In what terms? the unit in toto, the patirlcle energies, the majic fairy woofle?
Please, I have been asking for real data that support your concerns. Not just an endless stream of fallacies and illusions/allusions.
If you can prove unnature, please pop on a cap and red shoes like the big guy who has been trying to allude to all his career at the vatican.
You are still at the sky is falling stage of this overly protracted conversation.
That is the pity.
Mud, missing point, NSW, Oz
December 23, 2012 11:16pm
If the radiation is not the reason for the extended safety measures, then that only reinforces my assertions that the LHC operations are inherently dangerous because of the nature of the experiments.
Wiki "with energies to be doubled to around 14 TeV collision energy - more than ten times any predecessor collider - by around 2014."
"Not just an endless stream of fallacies and illusions/allusions."
I haven't provided an endless stream of anything, just a few pertinent concerns which so far have been answered with what effectively is only pseudoscience.
"If you can prove unnature"
Tell me where else anywhere in the entire universe is the start of the Big Bang happening, naturally ?
You can't, because in fact the start of the Big Bang has been and gone, naturally, 13.75 billion years ago.
Therefore, any attempt to reproduce those conditions at this time is unnatural.
It doesn't currently occur naturally, therefore it is an artificial environment in space-time, no matter how small.
Unnature.
Doesn't need data, which I can't provide anyway.
But it is utterly plain fact.
Macky, Auckland
December 24, 2012 1:36am
1) a very cumbersome sentence. two competing fallacies. We know how radiation attenuates in matter. This sentence and qualm of yours is now dead forever.
2) is a statement. Do you know that gigabequerels of iodine-131 are supplied to Nuc Med departments. That is about 10^9 of @ 1/2 MeV gamma alone emissions per second decaying over 8 day half lifes.. do the sums please.
3) no you have only posited fallacies and illusions/allusions. I now want wnat you call the 50% chance of the end of the world.
4) what makes you think that a big bang occuring in your being as you type has any effect on you?
5) the conditions of the energetic collisions we are talking about occur all over the universe. I have explained this before. You always choose to run away from that and post more non science argument.
Please if you are worried about those accelerated cosmics affecting high density materials, you should move to a less anisotropic field of high energy cosmics.
6) no, you could never provide any sort of argument for your fears other than your fears.
That is plain fact,
Please note we have had doomsayers about nigh on any issue since time immemoriam. This week fol suicided because the world was going to end.
Thats a real brave stance you use.
I'll save the utterly for your organic feta cheese...
Mud, missing point, NSW, Oz
December 24, 2012 1:58am
1) & 2) Okay, the radiation issue seems to be of no particular concern, and that suitable preventative measures are being taken.
It was merely a side-issue anyway
3) If you do not understand that if something bad happens, or not, is simply a 50% probability in itself, then I can't help you. Something bad may be only an explosion on site at the LHC, not necessarily the end of the world.
It will either happen, or it won't.
4) You know what big bang I'm talking about, Mud. THE Big Bang.
Stop engaging in diversions.
Typical corporate-style "argument".
5) Agreed. But they are occurring in different environments everywhere, not confined in a collision chamber(s).
I've said that already. Another example of your predilection for completely ignoring what I say.
6) My fears/concerns are not for my personal safety. They are for others, including the LHC scientists themselves.
I am not a doomsayer. I did not subscribe to the belief that the world was going to end 21-12-12.
Look Mud, I'm sorry if my posts on this obviously most controversial subject appear to be direct affronts to what seems to be a sacred cow of scientific enquiry, indicated by your emotional and colourful descriptions of me etc, throughout the LHC posts.
I assure you that I DO hope that nothing untoward will happen during these experiments.
I would be extremely sad to be proven right.
And I DO hope the LHC people find what they are looking for.
But I suspect they will only be left with more questions.
Macky, Auckland
December 24, 2012 2:17pm
At this point I would like to thank Brian and Macky, Tom, Cam and all the other skeptoiders over the years for their mental agility and entertaining posts in the Skeptoid comments section.
Thank you Brian for tirelessly coming up with the fantastic mind games people play on themselves and having a site where people can post their positions many times a day.
So happy festivities guys and back soonish for some good old mutual verbal rogering.
Macky, lastly, thanks for your speculations. They have been incredibly enttertaining and I can see how people like my mother saves water because the stuff in clay containers is purer than the stuff from the sky.
To all of you a christmas present, an age old math joke a physics lecturer played on a sleepy friday night class so many decades ago.
In one of his derivations appeared;
sin x
______= 6
n
See, even physicist have a sense of humor (but not often it appears!)
I hope skeptoid formatting allows it to be displayed correctly.
Have a good week guys, whether you like to crash out a long year on a couch or in a hot tub.
Best wishes
Henk
Please enjoy your protons whether you get them in your fruit juice or as the great Roger Ramjet...the proton pill!
Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
December 24, 2012 6:12pm
Yes thanks Brian for allowing me almost unlimited opportunity to bring enlightenment and clarity to those bogged down in silly old scientific dogma.
Best wishes once again, and I'm looking forward to your entertaining and informative posts next year.
To others here on Skeptoid, if you don't agree with me, tough luck. Best wishes anyway.
Mud deserves a special mention. His incomprehensible posts have kept me awake at night, and I look forward to the day when I may have even half his mental capability.
A very clever bloke.
Thanks Mud, I've enjoyed being booted all over the place. I'm sure you are the most super-fit skeptoid poster, with your constant dodging straight questions, leaping to conclusions, and avoiding straight answers.
You mother was right, by the way.
Water from the sky is contaminated by chemtrails.
Everybody knows that.
All the best, and don't let the turkeys get you down.
Macky, Auckland
December 24, 2012 7:57pm
Hah, Turkeys???
I have had my first "real haicut"since 1994 and my partner wants me to don the pillow case for six months.
Whilst I am here, could everyone please re-read the original article by Brian, his article on fallacies and of course the guide's version of fallacies before we launch into the last few issues involving the LHC. Macky would really enjoy Maynards approach to skepticism on the zone.
I am sure Brian wouldnt mind his "Corporate stooge brethren" at the guide being advertised and of course his "Tub" fellows at skeptic zone.
See you next week
Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
December 25, 2012 7:58pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Brian wrote :
"Then let me ask you the proverbial question - what would it take to convince you that collisions at the LHC energy levels take place naturally in the cosmos?"
Nothing Brian. I already believe that is true, with no reason to doubt it.
It's the conditions of those collisions that are different. Cosmic collisions are not in comparitively minute containers (LHC), they are spread out over surfaces of stars, planets etc, and are not deliberately confined as in these experiments.
Yanis' calculations result in only 10 times the collision rate of the LHC over every square meter of the Sun.
And a ball of nuclear fusion with a surface temp of around 6kC is hardly the same as a LHC collison chamber, whatever it is made out of.
Plus the generated temps of LHC collisions are posted as 100,000 times the temp at the centre of said ball of nuclear fusion, anyway, further marking a huge difference in conditions.
The conditions at the birth of the Universe are being deliberately recreated at the LHC.
Brian's quoted cosmic collision comparisons are not valid, nor Yanis', already because of the different collision environments.
Speculations under the guise of scientific facts are using cosmic collisions in the present universe to assure safety of collisions designed to emulate a time 13.75 billion years ago.
It's flawed science, in my opinion.
"(The synchrotron Radiation is unwelcome, therefore the extended safety precaution measures)"
I accept that explanation.
Macky, Auckland
December 22, 2012 11:49pm